Lawyer, mother, avid reader. Game host extraordinaire! Partner in crime to Obsidian Black Plague! My bookish weaknesses include classics, fantasy, YA, and agreeing to read more books than is even remotely possible.
I got this from a comment to Jim Hines blog - by someone named Sharon. It needs more visibility so I am posting it here, and editing my blog post about her manipulation to add the information.
"However, I just checked the timeline, and I believe Hale is lying, as usual. The tweet exchange re “I want some ideas!” all took place in early November. Harris had NOT finished her updates at that point. She had started out by loving the book, and said so.
She had only written one vaguely negative sentence about the book: “I could REALLY do without the multiple animal deaths in this one…” and that was on 10th November. So, at that point Harris had not yet formed a negative opinion on the book, so we can assume the interaction was completely innocent.
Then, for her article, Hale reframed the interaction to make it seem that Harris had contacted her AFTER she had written the rest of her updates, which just isn’t true! In fact, a damned lie!
Here again is the Tweet screenshot of the initial exchange: link
Note the dates.
And here again the actual review: link
Again, note the dates.
Hale is lying through her teeth. She did not, at the time of Harris’s initial contact, go and check and found a bad review. She found a predominantly GOOD review at that time. Much later, she changed the timeline so as to make Harris look like the evil stalker."
Thank you, Sharon, wherever you are, for noticing something that no one else, even those of us who have pulled about the piece from start to finish, noticed. Someone should hire you as a detective.